Ismail Khan vs State

2013 Y L R 1879

[Peshawar]

Before Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, J

ISMAIL KHAN alias MAYAIL---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous No.430-P of 2013, decided on 6th May, 2013.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Bail, grant of---Complainant had not charged accused for abduction of his daughter in his initial report, recorded in the shape of daily diary after a delay of 2 days---Complainant, later on, in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., charged accused along with his brother and mother for abduction of his daughter--- Complainant had not furnished the source of his satisfaction qua involvement of accused in abduction of his daughter, nor the abductee had been recovered from the custody of accused--- No evidence had been collected by the Investigating Agency to show any link or connection of accused with the mobile number, from which the complainant allegedly, received a phone call and heard the cry of his daughter---Question as to whether the alleged abductee left the house of her father at her own accord or otherwise, was yet to be answered by the prosecution during trial, after recording evidence, which made the case of accused arguable for the purpose of bail--- Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioner.

Akhtar Naveed, D.A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 2013.

JUDGMENT

ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.---Accused-petitioner, being unsuccessful before the two courts below to get the relief of bail, by way of instant application, seeks the same relief from this court, in case F.I.R. No.66 dated 25-2-2013, registered under section 365-B P.P.C., at Police Station East Cantt., Peshawar.

2.The prosecution case as per contents of the F.I.R. is that Mst. Rohina, wife of Gul Amin, who, on the eve of Eid, came to the house of his father Habib Khan complainant, on 19-11-2012 went missing, regarding which, her father reported to local police on 21-11-2012, which was recorded in Daily Diary No.4 of the even date, wherein the complainant charged no body, however, disclosed that her daughter, who is the wife of one Gul Amin, visited his house along with her children on the occasion of Eid, and at noon time, left the house without his permission, and did not return. He alleged that he received a phone call from Mobile No.0304-7812483, and heard crying of his daughter, but when he tried on the said number, he found it closed. On the report of complainant inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was conducted, and later on, on personal satisfaction of the complainant, he charged the accused-petitioner along with his brother Ikram alias Karam and mother Mst. Parveen, for abduction of his daughter Mst. Rohina, in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C.

3.Arguments heard and available record perused.

4.Admittedly, the complainant has not charged the accused-petitioner for abduction of his daughter in his initial report, recorded in the shape of daily diary, after a delay of 2 days. Later on, he in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 25-2-2013, charged the accused- petitioner along with his brother and mother for abduction of her daughter. The complainant has not furnished the source of his satisfaction qua involvement of the accused-petitioner in abduction of his daughter nor the abductee has been recovered from the custody of the accused- petitioner. No shred of evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency to show any link or connectivity of the accused-petitioner with the mobile number, from which the complainant allegedly received a phone call and heard the crying of his daughter. Abductee is still not recovered, thus, at the moment, on tentative assessment of the record, the question as to whether the alleged abductee left the house of his father at her own accord or otherwise, is yet to be answered by the prosecution during trial, after recording evidence, which makes the case of the accused-petitioner arguable for the purpose of bail.

5.For the reasons discussed above, instant petition is allowed. Accused-petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, concerned.

HBT/341/P Bail granted.